get_node_config

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), which implies no side effects. However, it lacks details such as whether the node must exist, permission requirements, error behavior, or the format of the returned config (e.g., XML, JSON). The description is minimal but not misleading.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and to the point, using a clear verb and resource. The Args/Returns format adds structure, though it could be more streamlined (e.g., 'Get the config of a Jenkins node by name'). No unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects), the description covers the essentials. The existence of an output schema compensates for the vague return description. However, it could mention the config format or any prerequisites for completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the single parameter 'name' as 'The name of the node', adding meaningful context beyond the schema's type 'string'. This fully addresses the parameter's purpose.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Get node config from Jenkins', specifying the verb (Get) and resource (node config). It also explains the argument 'name' and the return value, making the purpose unambiguous. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_node' which likely returns general node info, and 'set_node_config' which is a write operation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_node' or 'set_node_config'. There are no context clues about prerequisites, default behavior, or scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.